Dismissed

K.Narasimha Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its

Telangana HC7 Feb 2006WP/2285/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by petitioners claiming ownership of land, the High Court dismissed the petition as misconceived. The Court held that the dispute involves a breach of a development agreement and GPA, which is essentially civil in nature. It found no error in the final report by the investigating officer that the allegations fell within civil disputes, stating the petitioners must pursue a

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed. Petitioners at liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies before a civil court of competent jurisdiction; no order as to costs.

K.Narasimha Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.NO. 2285 OF 2006

¶3

DATED: 07.2.2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

K. Narasimha Reddy and another

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶11

W.P.NO.2285 OF 2006

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

Writ Petition is misconceived.

¶14

The two petitioners, claim to be the owners of Ac.0.36 guntas and Ac.1.00 in Survey Numbers 271 and 272 of Nizampet Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; to have entered into an agreement with the 4^th respondent on 24.11.1999 for development of the property. The petitioners preferred a complaint to the 3^rd respondent alleging offences by the 4^th respondent, falling within the provisions of Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There being no response to the complaint by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioners approached the I Class Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, who referred the complaint to the 3^rd respondent for investigation, in November 2004. After investigation, the 3^rd respondent filed a final report in the Magistrate’s court recording that the complaint discloses only civil disputes.

¶15

Alleging that the 3^rd respondent has not properly investigated their complaint and had filed a final report to the effect that the disputes are civil in nature, the writ petition is filed.

¶16

The essential disputes between the petitioners and the 4^th respondent is as regards violation of the agreement between the parties for the development of the petitioners’ properties, pursuant to a development agreement and a GPA executed in favour of the 4^th respondent. Such disputes being essentially civil in nature, the final report filed by the 3^rd respondent suffers from no error, warranting interference.

¶17

Writ Petition is dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to pursue their appropriate civil remedies against the 4^th respondent before a civil court of competence

¶18

jurisdiction. There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶19

GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶20

Date: 07.2.2006

¶21

cvm

K.Narasimha Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Narasimha Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Sivaiah, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

M/s Sri Surya Saw Mill, Vs Eastern Power Distribution Co., of A.P. Ltd.

Om Prakash Bhageriya, Vs The Secretary, Home Department, Government of

Sri N. Narasimhulu, Vs The District Collector

Gurram Subba Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

Princess Fatima Fouzia Vs The Director General